8 REASONS WHY CALIFORNIANS SHOULD VOTE NO ON PROP. 64

The Adult Marijuana Use Act of 2016

The following points were taken from a much more comprehensive article, that is fully sourced and cited, and quotes directly from the text of prop. 64. we have reprinted 8 points we think connection readers might find interesting, but the article lists 13 points worth considering. find the full article here: https://voteknowprop64.blogspot.com

Proponents of Prop. 64 are saying the initiative would end the drug war, free up cops and courts to focus on true crime, and even let imprisoned pot POWs go free. But a deeper look reveals that Prop. 64 will not do what it claims. Using the text of the initiative itself, this article looks at some of the misconceptions about Prop. 64.

Contrary to popular assumption, Prop. 64 states that NONE of the tax revenue from recreational cannabis will go to the General Fund. Instead, all tax revenue would go into the California Marijuana Tax Fund – an enormous slush fund designated solely to financing the massive bureaucracy that Prop. 64 would create. Not only does this createa system ripe for corruption and cronyism, since only Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, expected to head this recreational weed bureau, and his appointees would have the power to decide who receives those millions, but it is in stark contrast to what’s happening in other states that have recreational cannabis.

Prop. 64 allows cities and counties to ban all but indoor cultivation. In fact, since75 percent of local governments already have, or are considering bans, the majority of Californians will only have the option to grow indoors.

While proponents claim the initiative will legalize home grows of six plants or less, what they neglect to mention is that the freedom to grow outdoors would apply only to residents of a few localities; that number is per residence, not per person; it would be legal only under highly restrictive conditions; and if you break the rules, you could go to jail for 6 months or prison up to 4 years.

Practically speaking, having a home grow would be extremely difficult for most residents. And this is intentional: Since Prop. 64 was written not todecriminalizecannabis, but to legalize a recreational commercial cannabis industry, its goal is to get as many people as possible to buy cannabis. And the easiest way to do that is to make it nearly impossible for them to grow their own.

3) MYTH: PROP. 64 WILL PROTECT SMALL FARMERS

FACT: PROP. 64 WILL DECIMATE SMALL FARMERS

While Prop. 64 claims that it “protects small farmers” by including “anti-monopoly provisions”, this only applies tothe first 5 years of legalization. After that time, millionaire Weedmaps founder Justin Hartfield – the second largest investor in Prop. 64 after Sean Parker – intends to turn the current farm-to-table cannabis model into Big Tobacco.

The mom-and-pop cultivators that have been the backbone of the industry for generations would be priced out of competition in short order. Hezekiah Allen, a Humboldt-based spokesperson for the California Growers Association, believes this could “result in a catastrophic economic collapse for huge swathes of California.” Small farmers will barely have enough time to build a brand before the mega-grows with unlimited plant numbers overtake the industry and undercut them out of existence. This is a corporate cannabis coup.

4) MYTH: PROP. 64 IS NECESSARY TO REDUCE DRUG ARRESTS

FACT: PROP. 47 HAS ALREADY MADE PROP. 64 OBSOLETE

Thanks to Prop. 47, passed in 2014, simple possession of almost all drugs has been reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. As a result, California is drastically reducing drug arrests and the prison population across the state.

Even sharing any amount of cannabis would be a crime punishable by jail for teens and young adults aged 18-20 – even though it is not a crime today. Young people in this age group – which includes most college students – will face up to 6 months in jail and a $500 fine for simply sharing a joint together. Adults 21 and over who pass a joint to another college-age adult under 21 face the same steep penalty. In both cases, if they have certain prior convictions, under Prop. 64 they could be sentenced to state prison time, not county jail, for two, three or four years.

Currently, sharing any amount of cannabis under an ounce with other adults under 21 is a mere infraction in California, punishable by a $100 fine. If Prop. 64 passes, this activity would become a criminal offense, elevated to misdemeanor status statewide, thus making young offenders ineligible for federal student aid.

6) MYTH: PROP. 64 WILL BE IRREVOCABLE BY LEGISLATURE

FACT: PROP. 64 LETS LEGISLATURE ALTER IT AT WILL

Typically, voter initiatives cannot be amended except by another voter initiative—it’s the legal equivalent of “power to the people.” However, by giving legislators authority to change this initiative, Prop. 64 makes it a “power to the legislature” initiative, which can be changed at their whim, without voter approval or consent.

7) MYTH: PROP. 64 PROTECTS PATIENTS’ RIGHTS

FACT: PROP. 64 LETS LOCALITIES DECIDE MMJ PATIENTS’ RIGHTS

Today, some 2 million patients enjoy the right to grow as much cannabis as they require – literally an unlimited amount, as upheld by the Supreme Court in the People v. Kelly ruling—for any condition “for which marijuana provides relief.”And under California law as it is written today, anyone can become a patient, and no one has to lie to do it. Under Prop. 64, however, “unlimited” would drop to six (6) plants, which is nowhere near enough to treat many of the most serious ailments.

The initiative would further limit patients’ access by actually making it more difficult to get a doctor’s recommendation. Whereas under current law, a patient needs nothing more than an oral or written recommendation to obtain and grow cannabis, under Prop. 64, patients would be required to pay up to $100 annually for an ID card that currently is not required by law [Section 11362.755 (b)].

Surprisingly, for more proof that Prop. 64 will impact medical cannabis, one need look no farther than page one of the initiative, where in Section 2B it is written in black and white: Prop. 64 “will consolidate and streamline regulation and taxation for both nonmedical and medical marijuana.”

If you think that merging the two systems would have no negative impact on patients, we now have a clear example of what would happen under a consolidated market. It comes from Washington State.

8) MYTH: WHAT HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON WON’T HAPPEN HERE

FACT: PROP. 64 COULD END MEDICAL CANNABIS INDUSTRY AS WE KNOW IT

As of July 1 in Washington state, all medical dispensaries have been shuttered, and patients must now buy their medicine from recreational outlets at a bank-breaking 46 percent tax increase, on top of the overall higher price of recreational cannabis.During the state’s campaign for recreational cannabis in 2012, patients were told by proponents of Initiative 502 that Washington’s medical cannabis program would be left intact. But the initiative contained a rare provision that allows legislators to alter it at their whim.

Just six months after the first recreational pot shop opened, the legislature introduced a measure to end the state’s 15 year old MMJ program, close all medical dispensaries and drastically limit how much patients could grow and possess, in a deliberate move to force patients into the heavily-taxed recreational system.

This is destined to be repeated in California because Prop. 64 will replace, repeal and supersede Prop. 215. It is important to note that Prop. 215 is a voter initiative. And under state law, there is only one way a voter initiative can be changed, and that is with another voter initiative. Since Prop. 64 is also a voter initiative, and purports to regulate and tax “both nonmedical and medical marijuana” (Section 2B), Prop. 64 will unquestionably repeal Prop. 215.

Like Washington’s initiative, it also gives the legislature the same power to alter the initiative. In Washington, lawmakers decided to use that power to increase tax revenue by nixing the MMJ program. In California, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similar plans. In a recent interview with Mother Jones, Newsom makes clear not only his expectation that the two markets will become one, but that the reasons for this are entirely based on increasing potential tax revenue.

CONCLUSION

Above all, the goal of any recreational initiative should be to simply stop arresting people for cannabis­—which California has already achieved to great success. We don’t need another initiative to ‘grant’ us rights we already have.Is ending prohibition necessarily dependent upon implementing a massive, unwieldy corporate cartel and regulatory scheme, when California has already relaxed its pot laws to the point of virtual non-existence?

Dragonfly De La Luz, renowned ganja critic, is one of the earliest cannabis journalists. An activist for the liberation of cannabis her entire adult life, Dragonfly actively supports thoughtful, progressive legalization measures and actively opposes those that would corporatize cannabis for the benefit of the few. Her articles have appeared in the Journal of Education on Medical Marijuana, the Journal for the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and many others.

Her full article contains several more reasons to vote NO on Prop. 64, each with links to the initiative text and supporting opinions. For the sake of all those, especially patients, who choose marijuana over the state-sanctioned toxic options, please read it @ https://voteknowprop64.blogspot.com/).

Connection Magazine has, for 24 years, brought you Healthy Living and Conscious Living. Call us at (831) 459-0522 to advertise your business or to promote your event. Please go to Facebook/ConnectionOnline and like us.

About The Author

Connection Magazine has, for 24 years, brought you Healthy Living and Conscious Living. Call us at (831) 459-0522 to advertise your business or to promote your event. Please go to Facebook/ConnectionOnline and like us.

45 Comments

I’m not informed enough to critique the whole article– most of the author’s points sound logical and well-supported. I will think twice before voting for Prop 64.

But, a couple points seem weak to me:

“After that time, millionaire Weedmaps founder Justin Hartfield – the second largest investor in Prop. 64 after Sean Parker – intends to turn the current farm-to-table cannabis model into Big Tobacco.”

— this critique is that Prop 64 is bad because of what will happen after it’s provisions expire.
That is an argument to extend the Prop before it expires– not to defeat the Prop.

“PROP. 47 HAS ALREADY MADE PROP. 64 OBSOLETE”

— this critique is that 64 is redundant, because 47 already decriminalized weed. Not a legitimate complaint– redundancy of a desirable thing is not bad. It’s not the same REVERSING a desirable thing.

You are wrong about that So Hum Mama. It explicitly funds programs to help keep youth in school, give them job training and outreach to homeless youth. You should really read what the money is going to and I’m sure you will vote Yes on 64.

No. This is an attempt to illicit fear in voting. I see these so called “myths” about prop 64 that is mentioned here, yet I have heard no one make these mythical claims. If people would just read the proposition they would see what is really fact and what is false. If anything some of the “truths” she mentions are actually not the full truth, just the parts that she wanted to make clear, and ended up pulling them from their context. Although I am not agreeing with her on most of this article, she has some valid points, and most importantly she has the right to her own opinion.

On “Myth 7” I refer you to SEC 4.8 (i) of prop. 64 where it is clearly stated that part of what “Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restricy, or preempt:” are “Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”
This is the last line before Sec 5 begins. Given that it clearly shows your assertion to be mistaken, please take down Myth 7.

Also please point out the correction for past readers that may have been led to believe this egregious misinformation.

In the future please read your propositions more carefully before blogging about them.

thanks for your response. please note that section 11362.1 is governed by section 11362.2. (the very first words of section 11362.1 say that 11362.1 is “***Subject to Sections 11362.2… notwithstanding ANY OTHER provision of law.***”) so what 11362.2 says is also important.

“11362.2
(a) Personal cultivation of marijuana under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1 is subject to the following restrictions:
(1) A person shall plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process plants ***in accordance with local ordinances,*** if any, adopted in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section.

[***This means that, in order to be exempt from the plant limits in 11362.1, a patient must adhere to local law. Therefore, if your city or county bans cultivation – and according to NORML, nearly 75 percent of localities either already have or are considering bans – then you cannot lawfully cultivate, regardless of what 11362.1 says.***]
…

(3) ***Not more than six living plants may be planted,*** cultivated, harvested, dried, or processed within a single private residence, or upon the grounds of that private residence, at one time.

(b)(1) ***A city, county, or city and county may enact and enforce reasonable regulations*** to reasonably regulate the actions and conduct in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 11362.1”

now, if that oft-quoted clause — “Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996” — was inserted into section ***11362.2***, i would believe that patients would be exempt from the cultivation limits. BUT IT IS NOT.

remember, we’re not arguing so much about whether prop. 64 does or does not protect patients, but really this is about WHETHER LOCAL JURISDICTIONS CAN INTERPRET IT AS SUCH OR NOT. a good initiative would leave no room for interpretation. prop. 64 does. and if it looks like the cultivation law could be construed as limiting patients’ cultivation rights, then that is enough to warrant giving voting for prop. 64 a long, hard, second thought. if city legislators are hostile to cultivation (and it appears some 75% of the state’s cities and counties are), and wish to construe the language in a way that supports their agenda, they most assuredly will. a well written initiative would not even give them the chance. but we don’t have a well written initiative with prop. 64. we have an initiative that is subject to interpretation, and relies on local officials to regulate cultivation for patients.

it is quite unfortunate that prop. 64 was written so shoddily. it would have been much easier to support if it ONLY regulated RECREATIONAL cannabis, and left medical intact (like proponents widely claim it does). but it doesn’t. on page one of the initiative, in Section 2B it is written in black and white: Prop. 64 “will consolidate and streamline regulation and taxation for both nonmedical and medical marijuana.”

Regarding Myth 8 I refer you to Section 7 Part 14.5 “Marijuana Tax” 34011 (g) which reads “The sales and use tax imposed by Part 1 of this division shall not apply to retail sales of medical cannabis, medical cannabis concentrate, edible medical cannabis products or topical cannabis as those terms are defined in Chapter 3.5 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code when a qualified patient (or primary caregiver for a qualified patient) provides his or her card issued under Section 11362.71 of the Health and Safety Code and a valid government- issued identification card.”

Moreover, Section 5 “Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes” 11362.755 (a) notes that a county -may- charge a fee for a medical card, but “may” implies that a county fee is not required. However if a fee is charged, unlike how things currently are, prop 64 places limits on to how high those fees may go,
Subsection (b) stipulates that “In no event shall the amount of the fee charged by a county health departmeny exceed $100” and (c) stipulates a break for medi-cal patients “…a Medi-Cal beneficiary shall receive a 50 percent reduction in the fees established pursuant to this section.”

In light of this information I advise you to pull down Myth 8 as well and issue a correction for past readers, as any such situation in Washington clearly would not apply to California under Proposition 64.

Regarding Myth 5, you simply have the numbers wrong. I refer you to SECTION 8 of prop 64 “CRIMINAL OFFENSES, RECORDS, AND RESENTENCING” wherein it is clearly stated that for the crimes you mention:
“Persons under the age of 18 years shall be punished in the same manner as provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of section 11357.” That section itself reads:

“11357

(A) […] possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, or not more than four grams of concentrated cannabis, or both, shall be punished or adjudicated as follows:
(1) Persons under the age of 18 shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be required to:
(A) Upon a finding that a first offense has been committed, complete four hours of drug education or counseling and up to 10 hours of community service over a period not to exceed 60 days.
(B) Upon a finding that a second offense or subsequent offense has been committed, complete six hours of drug education or counseling and up to 20 hours of community service over a period not to exceed 90 days.
(2) Persons at least 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age shall be guilty of an infraction and punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100)”

I can only hope this is due to going off an older version of the proposition. In the future please update your blogs in accordance with changes in the propositions they comment on, and alert your readers of these changes as well so we may all have the most up to date information.

4) Prop 64 legalizes adult possession, cultivation sharing and giving away cannabis and reduces all but one current felonies into a “wobbler,” misdemeanor or less. This chart compares current California penalties with Prop. 64 showing what will be legal including retroactively removing or reducing felonies, expunges records, releases prisoners and eliminates jail as a punishment for minors: http://friendsofprop64.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Chris-Conrad-Penalty-Chart-8_2016.pdf.

5) This section is simply untrue by mixing up the initiative with the current penalties. It is already a misdemeanor to possess more than an ounce, sharing a joint is now a misdemeanor but under AUMA both will be legal for adults or an infraction for minors. The “wobbler” penalty she describes are currently felonies but Prop 64 makes that discretionary depending on the severity of the offense. See chart in # 4, above or read the details: http://chrisconrad.com/2016/02/auma-2016-criminal-penalties-and-social-justice/.

6) No one ever claims Prop. 64 is irrevocable except your writer. Prop. 64 Section 10 makes further legalization by the legislature easy (simple majority), tinkering around more difficult (super-majority) and it can never, ever make adult use of marijuana illegal again — because any change has to be consistent with the initiative’s intent: “to legalize, control and regulate” marijuana.

8) The legislature passed regulations last year (MCRSA) to end the medical marijuana collective defense, restore all felonies for patients who grow collectively and create a deeply flawed licensing system to replace it that will put thousands of people behind bars. Prop. 64 repairs much of the damage by creating a better system that allows nonmedical cannabusinesses to compete with the existing medical marijuana retail monopoly and bring down prices for everyone.

A quick review shows that virtually every claim your writer makes is inaccurate, and her review omits key facts: 1) Prop. 64 legalizes marijuana for nonmedical purposes, which means that 2) no matter what the Feds do about medical marijuana, Californians will always have a legal right to grow, buy, share and carry a small amount of marijuana. 3) Nine marijuana felonies will be removed or reduced, and 4) if people do choose to break the law and grow or sell marijuana illegally, they will face only a petty misdemeanor charge. 5) AUMA regulates dosages, ensures the purity and potency of the marijuana supply and therefore protects consumers, 6) its relatively low taxes will 7) fund vital parts of our state budget and 8) the newly created industry will bring billions of dollars above ground for our state economy.

I wish the Connection magazine had fact checked this article before posting, given how important these facts are for your readers I urge everyone to get out and Vote Yes on Prop. 64.

I refer you to SEC 4.8 (i) of prop. 64 where it is clearly stated that “Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restricy, or preempt … laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”

Somehow this got sent prematurely. the above is taken straight from the article…is this an example of the logic held within? Most people don’t grow cannabis, but lots of people do want to buy it. And they want to buy well regulated and tested weed. What am I not seeing here?

So the fact that Prop 64 protects home grows from being banned, has anti-monopoly regulations and encourages lots of licenses with the smaller businesses getting a five year heads up are all good reasons to Vote Yes on 64. If they wanted to maximize revenues for a few, they would have done what Dragonfly advocates, keeping a medical marijuana retail monopoly in place to rip off patients, arrest non-patients and tamp down competition. I’m glad she didn’t write this initiative or there would be all hell to pay, meaning her cronies who pay her to disseminate false information like this. Who is paying her to promote false information about legalization? We’ll probably never know, but it looks like most of the money is coming from Kevin Sabet and the forced Rehab industry. Spread the wealth, allow home grows and say no to the lies by voting Yes on Prop 64.

Wow this article is full of nothing but false claims and misleading lies! If anyone sees this comment, please read the articles below from both High Times Magazine and Weednews.com in the links that debunk both the 8 reasons listed here as well as Dragonfly De La Luz’s inaccurate info and misleading claims in her article.

On growing plants in California. The comment is misleading. You can not grow unlimited plants without an additional commercial license under a Collective. The law today is 6 plants per patient with an active Medical card.

WOW what a load of crap!!! As someone who’s read the entire initiative, nothing that Dragonfly says here is true. Did you guys even fact check before publishing this article? I’m guessing not, otherwise you would know that you would be publishing a pack of lies! You guys should’ve made a publication referencing this post in the link below from Leafly about prop 64 instead, this one is actually unbiased and evenly discusses both the pros and cons of prop 64.

I haven’t really had a chance to look up the details of the fiscal shenanigans yet, but I’d be inclined to legalize first then fix the fiscal hooey later. Once it’s legal it will be very hard to go back to prohibition, but not that hard to re-allocate the tax dollars. However, every year it stays illegal more people lose their lives either to death via people fighting over drugs or imprisonment and lifelong criminal records over nonviolent drug offenses.

“We don’t need another initiative to ‘grant’ us rights we already have. Is ending prohibition necessarily dependent upon implementing a massive, unwieldy corporate cartel and regulatory scheme, when California has already relaxed its pot laws to the point of virtual non-existence?”

Until California law is relaxed to the point that I can go into a into a dispensary or store and buy the stuff without a medical recommendation, then it’s just as illegal and out of reach as it has ever been. Prohibition is very much in existence and prop 64 is what is on the table to end it now. The alternative is four or eight more years of this nonsense until the next presidential cycle (we’ve already seen how receptive a mid-term electorate is to this).

I just did a careful scan of the Prop 64 text and find many inaccuracies in this article. I need to do another read, but I was able to identify lots of inaccuracies in this blog post – compared to what the law actually says. Just scan the policy text yourself and you will see. In my opinion, the text for prop 64 is very clearly and thoroughly written and I would use this as a standard to compare with other policy to test for loopholes and vague language. I highly suspect that much of the opposition to prop 64 comes from the old-school growers who will now be taxed on their 6-figure incomes and required to pay out higher overhead for their operation. I signed the original signature petition to get this on the ballot and I am glad I did.

I actually read the entire bill when bored a couple months back. A lot of the really shady parts this article mentions are later contradicted by further language. It’s a surprisingly confusing bill in the sense that it poses all these rules and legalities in ambiguous hypotheticals; for example it gives the power to any regulatory agent (which it specifies includes even the lowliest municipal officer, or a forest ranger) the power to do unannounced inspections at any location licensed to grow, process, handle, or distribute. Every 24 hours. The penalties are flat, like the California three strikes rule, and immediately lead to jail time upon second violation (keep in mind these are mandatory under the language, so there’s no chance the prosecuting agency could simply allow no complaint – aka not filing charges); and wasn’t one of the purposes of all this buildup to reduce jail time and police effort against marijuana? To get rid of mandatory sentencing? So much for that. And that only one of dozens of weird clauses that held no further explanation of merit or purpose.

I like what we have now. Not even Colorado has weed festivals anymore, and yet just the Bay Area alone now has over a dozen a year. That should give people an idea of just how “illegal” it really is as it stands now. This bill is ill thought and ill purposed and does nothing to lessen the pressure of risk of arrest – the only scenarios you could be arrested for possession currently, still remain under prop 64.

Dragonfly Del La Luz is about the only rebuttal necessary. It seems very qualified to make a logical critique of the initiative, it has cleared read the proposition with a keen legal eye. I bet it’s law degree is from paranoid-conspiracy-U. Hmmm, I wonder what Dragonfly De La Luz’s profession is? “Traveler” “wander” “free spirit”

Oh and Monsanto is a giant conspiracy by the Bush administration to poison us.

Why do we have so many dumb stoners and outsiders that had nothing to do with the rise of the medical cannabis community that want this to pass. Vote no on prop 64.. And if you risked your freedom over the course of the years and think this is a good deal that’s ignorant in my opinion. Know your worth medicinal community!

911 shout out to the anti GMO movement!
Please repost and share this, only hours left to change the tide <3
We need your help asap!
We are certain that many anti gmo folks will unknowingly vote for prop 64 thinking they are voting for "legalization" in Cali.
Please consider our urgently important message (here in the note below) before you vote on Nov 8,
We know it's a disappointing recommendation, but our reasoning is explained below, so please vote no on prop 64. If you have a chance, also please drop by and support our new page and efforts to spread the word with a 'like' and a share, thanks <3
Why doesn't prop 64 account for or address the reality of genetically engineered cannabis?
One sentence is all it would have taken to protect California consumers from genetically engineered (gmo) cannabis being legally sold or grown in Cali.
The reason prop 64 stays quiet on the subject of gmo cannabis is because if the text doesn't specifically account for such, then it is de-facto allowable, and so if prop 64 passes, just as in Colorado, gmo cannabis will be sold without any regulatory restraints or labeling. Even FDA oversight will be non existent because the federal law still doesn't allow for cannabis.
If you truly support an END to prohibition, and the restoration of the natural human rights you were born with, then please understand this is not what you are supporting if you are supporting prop 64.
If you don't want to support corporations like Monsanto (et al), privatizing the genetic building blocks of the food chain (the commons) we all depend on, then you should not be in support of prop 64.
Prop 64 represents the evolution of prohibition from the cartel model into the corporate model, all of which takes place in the void where your human rights are being denied.
Here is a link to the text we should be passing into law before we take any further legislative action:
'The Freedom to Garden, Human Rights Restoration And Natural Seed & Plant Protection Act'https://www.facebook.com/no64truth2freedom/notes/
Prop 64 has enormous funding while our grass roots NO on 64 effort depends entirely on you spreading the word, thanks! <3
Also please check out this overview on the text of 64 from: PROGRESSIVES AGAINST THE PROP. 64 ADULT USE MARIJUANA ACT https://voteknowprop64.blogspot.com/p/inan-effort-to-lure-v…

This is BULLSHIT.
1. Look at revenue of Colorado. School district money increases by 5% . While federal system cut fundings for schools. So how Colorado increase there money? *you can also use Seattle as reference.
2. You can’t grow more than 6 planets in a home. If you do you have to apply for business license . I have seen home grown you definitely don’t need more than 6 planets in rotation. Which is fair.
3. “Yes it is illegal to drive high .” It’s adult use only . Most people say they drive better. So how is officer going to know you high. Unless you are in the middle of spliff .
4. Small business owners have the possibility of getting bought out. That ‘s because cannabis is ran by hippies and no real business people. That’s why Dasheeda Dawson created a company (MaryJane-Marketing.com) to help these small business owners keep there company.
5. Kids/ teens drink, smoke, f**k . We already know that . Their ability to get Marijuana will be the equivalent of them getting alcohol. Tbh it’s easy to get both . I want to smoke blunt the im club , or is comfort of my home legally.
6. I agree they need to specify medicinal vs adult use Marijuana.